CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) sued the United States for a tax refund of over $2 million for fiscal years 1984-1987, related to income from Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company. The core issues were whether the income was taxable as "unrelated business income" (UBI) and, if so, whether it qualified for the royalty income exception. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that TFB's activities constituted a "trade or business" that was "regularly carried on" and "not substantially related" to its tax-exempt purpose, thus confirming the income as UBI. However, the court denied summary judgment on the royalty income exception, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the payments were intended as partial reimbursement and partial royalty for the use of TFB's name and goodwill. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the royalty income characterization.

TaxationUnrelated Business Income (UBI)Tax Exempt OrganizationsInternal Revenue CodeSummary JudgmentRoyalty IncomeAgricultural OrganizationsTrade or BusinessProfit MotiveSubstantially Related Test
References
17
Case No. E2009-00018-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The father left his salaried employment to start his own construction business, which led to a significant decrease in his annual income and subsequent reduction in child support payments. The mother petitioned the Trial Court to find the father voluntarily underemployed and impute additional income. However, the Trial Court found the father was not willfully unemployed and adjusted child support based on his current income. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Trial Court erred in its calculation of child support and in not including the father's pension rollover as gross income. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the mother failed to prove the father was voluntarily unemployed and that a retirement rollover used for business capitalization was not personal income for child support purposes.

Child SupportVoluntary UnderemploymentImputed IncomeEarning CapacityParental ObligationRetirement RolloverGross IncomeFamily LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1979

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant with a permanent partial disability following a back injury in 1968. The claimant, who later became the sole owner of a bar and restaurant, had his reduced earnings award after June 14, 1976, challenged by the Board's finding that his business income was "profits and not wages." The court determined that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence, as the claimant's active participation in the business, such as ordering supplies and bartending, indicated that at least a portion of his income constituted actual earnings. The court ruled that completely disregarding such evidence in determining actual earnings was incorrect, even if the income was a mix of wages and profits. Therefore, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsBusiness IncomeWages vs. ProfitsActual EarningsSubstantial EvidenceRemittalWorkers' Compensation LawAppealBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Sherry Moore, an employee of the City of Marshall, suffered a work-related injury in January 1987. Although GAB Business Services, the insurance adjuster, initially paid for some medical expenses, they denied weekly workers' compensation benefits for her back injury, claiming it was from a separate incident at home. Moore successfully appealed to the Industrial Accident Board and later won a bench trial, which found her back injury compensable and led to a lawsuit against GAB, the City, and the Risk Pool for bad faith and deceptive trade practices. A jury found in favor of Moore against GAB for $25,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against GAB, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that GAB acted in bad faith by denying the claim without a reasonable basis, and engaged in unfair practices, causing Moore mental anguish damages. The court also rejected GAB's defenses of governmental and official immunity and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Bad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsEvidentiary Rulings
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 15, 1973, which denied him reduced earnings. Following a compensable back injury in 1967 and subsequent medical advice for limited work, the claimant established his own contracting firm. He contended that his business income constituted "profits" rather than "earnings," which would affect his wage-earning capacity under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-a). The court disagreed, stating that the characterization of income as profits or earnings is a factual determination for the Board, and found ample evidence that the claimant performed "general work" in his business, justifying the classification of his income as earnings. Furthermore, the court upheld the denial of reduced earnings, concluding that the claimant's total economic benefit, encompassing his draw, retained earnings, and accumulation of assets, averaged over $150 per week. The Board's decision was therefore affirmed.

reduced earningsworkers' compensation lawself-employment incomeprofits vs earningswage earning capacityappellate reviewfact-findingeconomic benefitasset accumulationmedical restrictions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1983

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Claimant suffered a back injury on September 29, 1977, while working for International Business Machines, Inc. She continued to work until October 21, 1977, but subsequently experienced frequent absences due to disability. The Workers' Compensation Board made varying determinations regarding her disability, ultimately classifying it as a permanent partial disability with a 75% earning capacity. Despite conflicting medical opinions from numerous doctors, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The decision appealed from found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceBoard DeterminationBack InjuryEmployment InjuryAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,447 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational